The separation of the legal state from its foundations in Iran's constitutional movement

The Iranian Constitutional Revolution was a pivotal event in the country's history, its effects still evident today. The movement aimed to replace the absolute monarchy with a constitutional government, ultimately succeeding in establishing a constitution that sought to lay the legal foundation for a parliamentary system with democratic principles. A comparison of the Constitutional Revolution with other contemporary European constitutional movements reveals that its ideals were more closely aligned with the German constitutional movement, with an emphasis on limiting the absolute political power of the monarch and, consequently, the executive branch. The cornerstone of our discussion in this essay is first to recognize the understanding of the "rule of law" among constitutionalist thinkers, its elements, and its manifestation in the Constitutional Constitution and its supplement. The findings of this study show that the ideal of the "rule of law" cannot be found in a coherent way in the opinions of the thinkers of the Constitutional Movement. Therefore, it seems that the authors of the Constitutional Constitution and its supplement were not very successful in institutionalizing the concepts of the rule of law for various reasons. In addition, theoretically, there is also a break from the foundations in the realization of its important indicators.
Introduction
The Iranian Constitutional Revolution, even before the Young Turk Revolution in 1908, is considered the first of its kind in the Islamic world, and the reason for this can be attributed to some extent to the conditions in Iran in the second half of the 19th century. The Constitutional Revolution was the first public uprising in Iranian history that, unlike past rebellions against despotic kings, was not only intended to overthrow a despotic government but also to replace it with a constitutional government in the form of a constitutional monarchy. Finally, it succeeded in establishing a constitution that sought to provide the necessary legal foundation for the government [1] in the form of a parliamentary system with democratic principles.
In early 1906, liberal and democratic constitutionalists in the Majlis, whose eyes were on the West in drafting the electoral law and the constitution, hoped to pass a similar bill of rights; but they did not fully succeed in this. The 1906 Constitution and its supplement limited the powers of the Shah, reduced the granting of privileges, and established the principle of popular sovereignty, but failed to achieve many of its aspirations. The rule of law, a constitutional monarchy, and even democracy (as interpreted as national government in that era) were nominally achieved; but the reaction of the general public was no different from the despotic behavior that Iranian society had shown after the overthrow of despotic governments.
In this context, the words "law" and "freedom" were more or less used interchangeably, because for Iranians, law was synonymous with freedom from the shackles of despotic rule. Therefore, in practice, both law and especially freedom were equated with freedom from any restriction, even from the restriction of law itself. So the experience was the same old familiar experience in a new guise: So their understanding of freedom and even their understanding of law, in Isaiah Berlin's interpretation, was negative, because it signified the removal of something rather than the imposition and imposition of something; in other words, theoretically, law was equated with the absence of despotism; that's all.
 
Conceptual Framework
For this reason, it is necessary to analyze the concepts used in the context of the "rule of law" in that era to assess the extent of the success of the constitutionalists; but before that, we must see what is meant by the constitutional movement and what is meant by the rule of law and where their elements intersect. In other words, in the constitutional movements, what pillars of the rule of law were intended to be realized in the constitutions? A correct definition of the rule of law and its elements clarifies the difference between this concept and the rule of law and, as a result, the place of each of them in the constitutional movement becomes more apparent.
 
Analysis of the Iranian Constitutional Revolution
In the case of Iran, can the Constitutional Revolution be considered a constitutional movement in the traditional sense in the history of constitutional law? For this, it is necessary to compare the foundations of the Constitutional Revolution with the foundations of other constitutional movements. Examining the goals of the movement is also very important. In this context, it is important to know whether the Constitutional Revolution tended more towards the realization of the rule of law or the rule of law? It should be seen how the necessary foundations for drafting the constitution were provided? In other words, what was the view of the intellectuals of that era on the foundations of the constitutional movement, and were these foundations correctly reflected in the constitution? Also, it should be seen what the public understanding of the constitution was? What were the priorities for the constitutionalists in drafting the constitution? Finally, did the Constitution and its supplement, as the embodiment of all the demands and aspirations of that period, have the capacity to provide a strong foundation for the establishment of the rule of law and create an appropriate framework for political power
 
Methodology
In this context, we must first explore the theoretical foundations of the rule of law among the constitutionalists. Undoubtedly, these foundations need to be examined among the two main groups of constitutionalists, namely the clergy and the intellectuals. Another part of this examination is a brief comparison of the Constitutional Revolution with other constitutional movements in Europe, America, and the region. Then, we will examine the manifestation of the rule of law in the Constitutional Constitution and its supplement, and in this context, we will evaluate its achievements and weaknesses.
 
Conclusion
Overall, despite scattered signs, the ideal of the "rule of law" cannot be found in a coherent way in the opinions of the thinkers of the Constitutional Movement. The Constitutional Revolution initially had a lot of structural similarities with the German constitutional movement, and only thought about limiting the absolute political power of the monarch and consequently the executive branch. However, during the period of drafting the supplement to the constitution, other issues such as protecting the rights and freedoms of citizens were suddenly raised, which were reminiscent of the parameters of the constitutional movements in France and the United States. At the same time, the strong tendency to create a strong legislature in the face of a weak executive and the continued dominance of the legislature is a fundamental feature of the British constitutional movement. This group of similarities may be due to the influence of the ideals of various constitutional movements on the constitutionalist intellectuals of that period, although this influence was sometimes incomplete and imperfect. However, the important result of this mixture was the temporary deviations of the Iranian constitutional movement from a clear path and the subsequent numerous disputes that prevented the constitutionalists from continuing and institutionalizing this movement from a legal perspective. In other words, since the legal system is derived from the constitutional movement, the legal system in our country did not develop properly due to this confusion in the aforementioned movement.
In addition to all of the above, the main elements of the rule of law, namely separation of powers, equality, legal certainty, guarantee and protection of citizens' rights and freedoms, and the establishment of a legal system based on legal norms, as envisaged in the rule of law, were not found in a coherent way in the Constitution and its supplement. The reason for this was that all the efforts of the constitutionalists were devoted to limiting political power, and in later phases, they failed to allocate the necessary legal space for these matters. The specific conditions of Iranian society and the lack of familiarity of the intellectual leaders of the Constitutional Movement with the key concepts of the rule of law were also contributing factors. As a result, the Iranian constitutional movement was unsuccessful in achieving and institutionalizing the rule of law, and there is a break from the foundations in the realization of its important indicators. This gap was such that the weak foundations of the mother law could not bear the capacity for a coherent legal system based on the subordinate norms of this system.